August 2013

08/30/2013

The Grand Resort Hotel and Convention Center in Tennessee sued TripAdvisor for defamation after being ranked #1 on TripAdvisor's Dirtiest Hotels list in 2011, won, and was awarded $10 million. This week, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the award, holding that TripAdvisor's list is speech protected by the First Amendment. The director of the Digital Media Law Project at Harvard told Reuters that the decision is “a victory for online review sites by letting them not only publish user comments but also draw conclusions.”

For Grand Resort Hotel and Convention Center, TripAdvisor's list showed a photo of a ripped bedsheet accompanied by a quote, “There was dirt at least 1/2" thick in the bathtub which was filled with lots of dark hair;” a thumbs down icon; and the statement “87% of reviewers do not recommend this hotel.” ABA Journal reports that Grand Resort closed in 2012 and has been purchased by a holding company.

It takes a strong stomach to read the list and the opinion, but there is some perverse satisfaction to be had in being reminded that your own nightmare hotel experiences pale in contrast to others. From the opinion:

No reader of TripAdvisor’s list would understand Grand Resort to be, objectively, the dirtiest hotel in all the Americas, the North American continent, or even the United States. TripAdvisor did not conduct a scientific study to determine which ten hotels were objectively the dirtiest in America. ...

The quotations regarding other hotels on the “2011 Dirtiest Hotels” list confirm that the list cannot be reasonably understood as asserting that the hotels on the list are, in fact, the ten dirtiest hotels in America. Beside each of the nine other hotels on the list is one of the following:

Hotel #2: “Had to go buy socks so my feet wouldn’t touch the carpet.”

Hotel #3: “They have dead roaches all over the hotel.”

Hotel #4: “The bathtub was full of dirty black stuff.”

Hotel #5: “Hold your nose for the garbage smell.”

Hotel #6: “Probably more sanitary to sleep in the bathroom of the room.”

Hotel #7: “Crusty white stains on the blankets and sheets.”

Hotel #8: “Mouse feces located around the base of the bathroom.”• Hotel #9: “Camp out on the beach instead.”

Hotel #10: “25 bug bites between the two of us.”

It is clear that these are dramatic examples of TripAdvisor’s users’ experiences at these various hotels and serve the function of entertaining readers. Thus, the hyperbolic nature of these quotes highlights why the general tenor of the entire “2011 Dirtiest Hotels” list supports our conclusion that the list cannot reasonably be understood as asserting that these are, in fact, the ten dirtiest hotels in America. Further, the lack of a recurring theme of what TripAdvisor’s users considered to be dirty in each of the hotels on the list underscores why any reader would understand the list not to be communicating anything more than the experiences of individual users of TripAdvisor. In other words, the meaning of “dirtiest” is not easily pinned down when read beside these quotations; therefore, readers would not interpret “dirtiest” as making an assertion of fact. See Levinsky’s, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 129 (1st Cir. 1997) (“The vaguer a term, or the more meanings it reasonably can convey, the less likely it is to be actionable.”). Therefore, the general tenor of the entire “2011 Dirtiest Hotels” list supports our conclusion that TripAdvisor’s placement of Grand Resort as the dirtiest hotel in America cannot reasonably be understood as communicating an actual fact about Grand Resort.

Misconduct by former state bar presidents is rare, but if you're looking for an example, try Kentucky. Making the case especially noteworthy is the fact that the state's latest example of presidential misconduct involves misconduct during a presidential term. The Supreme Court of Kentucky issued a reprimand today of Barbara Bonar, the 2008-2009 President of the State Bar of Kentucky for, among other things, misrepresenting the reason she had removed four members from the Kentucky Bar Association's ethics committee during her presidency. She falsely claimed that terms of the four members, who had ties to a firm Bonar sued unsuccessfully for
fees, had expired, and that she had removed them to create greater diversity on the committee. The misconduct grew out of Bonar's involvement in a class action lawsuit against a Roman Catholic Diocese alleging long-term concealment of sexual abuse by diocesan priests. From the opinion:

While Bonar's conflict of interest is
arguably the most serious violation in her consolidated file, her admitted
violation of former SCR 3.130-8.3(c) arising out of her conduct as KBA
President is deeply troubling. When the allegations of ethical misconduct were
levied against Bonar, KBA policy prohibited her from sitting on disciplinary
cases. Following the KBA investigation, the Board mandated that Bonar seek
consent and approval from the KBA Board of Governors or Executive Committee for
any further committee appointments or removals. As Past President, Bonar was
unable to review proposed consensual discipline. Moreover, her misconduct as
KBA President is apparently unique. Previous disciplinary actions against
Kentucky bar association officers are distinguishable from Bonar's case, and
there is an absence of legal authority in other jurisdictions concerning a bar
president's misconduct while acting in his or her official capacity. There is
no doubt that Bonar's actions and subsequent brazen misrepresentations harmed the integrity of
her office and adversely affected KBA operations.

In 2007, the Kentucky Supreme Court disbarred the 2003 President of the Kentucky State Bar, Steve Catron, for mishandling more than $500,000 in public
funds. The Kentucky Bar Association is a mandatory state bar created in 1934.

The State Court Administrative Office is offering a free online toolkit for judges and lawyers who handle child protection cases. Kelly Howard, director of the Child Welfare Services division that created the toolkit called it a comprehensive resource to help judges and attorneys work toward proper permanency of a child. The toolkit is organized by hearings at various stages in child protection proceedings. Each section includes a description of the hearing, applicable court rules and statutes, bench cards, recommended court forms, links to training videos and materials, administrative memorandum, and other resources and publications. The toolkit also includes step-by-step guidelines for judges to follow.

Staunch civil rights advocate and United Auto Workers president Walter Reuther was recruited by the White House "to infiltrate the march and steer it away from radical rhetoric and direct action," wrote Charles Euchner in his book "Nobody Turn Me Around," about the historic march.

The New Republic's Reuther piece linked to one of their 1962 stories, Romney and the Republicans, a fascinating read for Michigan political history buffs, especially in the context of the ensuing 51 years.

As background for this post, SBM Blog looked at all issues of the Michigan Bar Journal in 1963 for any reference to the March on Washington. There was none.

A Georgia lawyer tells the Huffington Post that his "buy one, get the next one half off" divorce coupon featured in the "headlines" portion of the Tonight Show last year is working. "Personally, I had good vibes about that ad the very day I created it."

To those who complain about lawyer billboards around Michigan -- it could be worse?

08/27/2013

You may want to claim the title yourself, but only MSU College of Law profs Renee Knake and Dan Katz can claim formal "Legal Rebel" status from ABA Journal in 2013. Readers of this blog already know what the ABA Journal recognized with this honor -- that Knake and Katz are "change leaders" in the profession. From the Journal:

Congratulations, too, to MSU College of Law and its dean, Joan Howarth, for the support of this vision.

Dean S. Lewis, of Kalamazoo, died August 26 at the age of 79. He was a 1958 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School. Mr. Lewis practiced in the area of estate planning and probate, business and real estate, with the law firm Lewis, Reed & Allen in Kalamazoo. He served as President of the State Bar of Michigan in 1980-81.

Lewis was known for his large physical stature, which was matched only by his big sense of humor. He became SBM president at age 46, and was known and loved for being the "every-day lawyer's lawyer." Lewis was a big believer in sacrificing something in return for what you've been given. He famously said, "Put something of yourself back into society . . . . Never forget to put some of what you take back into the profession . . . . Where, you may ask, 'do the time and energy come for this task?' There is no easy answer. They simply must be found."

State Bar President Bruce A. Courtade expressed deep sadness at his passing. "The legal community has lost a larger-than-life leader who was passionate about the profession and about giving back," he said." Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Lewis family."

Services will be held 2 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 3 at the First Presbyterian Church, 321 W. South St., Kalamazoo. Visitation will precede the services from 12:30–2 p.m. at First Presbyterian Church. Memorial donations can be made to Olivet College Alumni Scholarship Fund or First Presbyterian Church. For more information about Mr. Lewis' life and his funeral arrangements, visit www.lifestorynet.com.

The idea of a two-year legal education has been bouncing around for a long time ("If the Brits and Canadians can do it more quickly, why can't we?") But nothing jumpstarts an idea quite so much as the President of the United States getting on board.

There's a lot of commentary out there right now as a result of the President's remarks, but Ed Kilgore at Washington Monthly comes up with the best line of the day, in the course of his support of the proposal:

[A]n awful lot of law students, in my experience, have been “thinking like a lawyer” since about the third grade, which made them very unpopular children.

National Law Journal has a short, gripping piece that offers insight into the U.S. asylum process and the value of pro bono. It describes the asylum application of a girl whose circumstances were similar to those of Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani girl shot in the face by Taliban militants for her activism about educating girls in Pakistan.